The most important battle of WW2

[plan_D]

Let's not have this stop, this is a thread about battles.

Fall Weiss - 'The Polish movements fitted into the German plan like a glove' Is it me, or does that give the sense that this was easy? Reading Panzer Battles and Panzer Leader, both written by Germans. I can safely say on many occasions, from divisional level upwards, the German army considered those victories easy.

I know of many German officers who praised the bravery of the Polish. The same German officers also stated that bravery doesn't stop superior tactics and machinery though.

You are completely missing the point of my posts. They all point back to a possible German invasion of Britain. The British would have been supplied in Britain (My comment about them not being supplied in France, points to this).
Arras point shows that the British would have a distinct advantage and that the Wehrmacht would have been slaughtered.
Crete points show that the Germans only won because of air superiority over Crete. Something they never achieved over Britain. Again, they would have been slaughtered.
The Royal Navy holding the Med pointed towards the Royal Navy would slaughter the Kriegsmarine.
Britain being out-numbered pointing towards they would not be out-numbered on British soil.

les, the British could have held off the Germans without US military presence. The thing that kept Britain afloat was the supplies, and then the Lend-Lease in starting from 1941. Certainly, D-Day would have never happened if America had not been there. The war would have stopped at the Channel had America never got involved

[Lightning Guy]

Ok . . .if I may sum up the situation . . .

In order for Sealion to have been succesful . . .
1. German high command would have had to have avoided the blunders made duing the BoB (namely shifting to London instead of RAF targets)
2. The RAF would have had to have been effectively neutralized
3. The RN would have had to have been virtually anihilated
4. Germany would have had to have developed landing craft suitable for open water
5. Some form of large amphibious ship would have had to have been developed in order for Wermacht heavy equipment to be landed ashore
6. The US would have had to have remained completely neutral
7. The German forces would have had to have sustained a massive logistical operation by air and sea
8. The most determined foe yet faced by Germany would have had to have been defeated defending its own turf

All of these (or at least most of them) would have had to occur for there to have been any chance of success. And of course all of that is irrelevant if German losses are so high that the Eastern border with the Soviet Union is left exposed.

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Yes it was planning. If there had been more planning, they would have had a better way to transport the forces including tanks, everything needed. They would have a better plan to obtain air superiority (not bomb the s**t out of cities but take out factories and air bases), they would have had a more realistic plan in place.

I think you took me wrong about England needing the US. Yes I agree that England did need supplies from the US. I completly agree with you but the Brits were a very capable fighting force that did not need to be rescued by the US on the battle field as it seems that you sometimes imply. Dont take me wrong I admire your patriotism, it is very noble but the Brits were not a second rate military and did not need the US military to fight off the Germans.

And yes as I said before if the US and the Brits had combined fleets it would have been an amazing fleet but at the time of the proposed Seeloewe there was no fleet better then the Royal Navy.

First, what you are talking about as "planning" is really "preperation". German industry would have had to be building a large invasion fleet way back in early 1939. But had they done so, the British would have noticed and reacted. Churchill would probably have attained power as a result, and the whole war would have gone differently. Quite possibly the RN would have shelled the German shipyards. And such a re-focusing of industry would have reduced either the level of mechanization of the German Army and/or the strength of the Luftwaffe' as well.

I think you misunderstand my point. I'm not saying the British needed the USA to defend it at this point, but rather I think had it looked even possible that the Germans might successfuly invade Britain FDR would have taken action to prevent it. Especially action which did not involve declaring war, such as staging US ships to be in range of such an invasion and making sure Hitler was aware of this.

And I disagree about the fleets. By Summer 1940 the US fleet was a fair bit superior to the British fleet, both in numbers and quality.


==================================

Udet,

Given that Dunkirk occured in May and the earliest possible Seelowe invasion might have been in mid to late Sept., I think the British had had pleanty of time to recover and prepare for an invasion. They'd already mined the beaches and set up defenses of various kinds and positioned forces for counterattacks.

=S=

Lunatic

Originally Posted by Lightning Guy

Ok . . .if I may sum up the situation . . .

In order for Sealion to have been succesful . . .
1. German high command would have had to have avoided the blunders made duing the BoB (namely shifting to London instead of RAF targets)
2. The RAF would have had to have been effectively neutralized
3. The RN would have had to have been virtually anihilated
4. Germany would have had to have developed landing craft suitable for open water
5. Some form of large amphibious ship would have had to have been developed in order for Wermacht heavy equipment to be landed ashore
6. The US would have had to have remained completely neutral
7. The German forces would have had to have sustained a massive logistical operation by air and sea
8. The most determined foe yet faced by Germany would have had to have been defeated defending its own turf

4 and 5 would have required German industry to focus on such craft at over a year earlier. Craft they had no experiance in building. This would have seriously detracted from other parts of the German military machine, most notably armor and aircraft. A huge investment in a weapon that is only useful IF France falls easily, and which significantly diminishes the likelyhood of that happening.

I don't think Germany had the industrial capacity to build such an invasion fleet, it was all already used building tanks and aircraft.

=S=

Lunatic

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by lesofprimus

I totally agree.....

That I disagree with.... There was no way that a small tiny Island Nation could forstall the innevitable Juggernaught of Nazi Germany for very long without a US military presence...... Dont think a landing in Normandy coulda been done by the Brits themselves...

Although, looking at your statement, it could mean that England didnt need USA to fight their battles for them, just help them out.........

If thats what u meant, then I agree with u...

Yes I agree with you fully. What I mean is the Royal Navy would not have needed help from the US Navy. The Royal Navy at the time was the most grand fleet the world had ever seen. Maybe only surpassed by the Royal Navy of the Dreadnaught days.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by RG_Lunatic

4 and 5 would have required German industry to focus on such craft at over a year earlier. Craft they had no experiance in building. This would have seriously detracted from other parts of the German military machine, most notably armor and aircraft. A huge investment in a weapon that is only useful IF France falls easily, and which significantly diminishes the likelyhood of that happening.

I don't think Germany had the industrial capacity to build such an invasion fleet, it was all already used building tanks and aircraft.

=S=

Lunatic

And with this I agree fully. I agree with every point you just made Lighting Guy and I dont think Germany could have achieved all of these things. 1 and 2 could have been attained had the Germans not screwed up the BoB by trying to destroy London. 3 I think would have completely unattainable and even Hitler new this, he was scared to commit his ships even the Bismark and the Tirpitz to battle with the Royal Navy. 4 and 5 could have been attainable however as RG_Lunatic said they would have required planning and building years before the invasion was to take place and this would have required it being done before the war even started and I think Hitler was hoping for peace with England as was stated by several people. With 6, as stated by RG_Lunatic I dont the US would have stayed completely Neutral, but I dont think it would have come to this because the British would not have needed the US based on the facts taht 1 through 5 were not obtained. With 7 as I have stated in other posts, I dont think the logistical problems ever could have been solved especially with the Royal Navy and the RAF still in operation. Lastley with 8 that would have been the biggest problem if they had even reached the shores. The British fighting for there homeland on there home turf would have been fierce and an extremely tough foe. Soldiers protecting there homeland have something to fight for and are fighting with heart. The Germans would not have had this, they would have just been invading a country like the others they had done.

[Lightning Guy]

Well, there are some exceptions to defending home turf (the French in 1940 and the Italians in 1943). But I don't think the British would have been in this catergory. Churchill's "you can always take one with you possibly" certainly summed up the outlook of the British population. Had the Germans invaded England, they most likely would have faced a situation not unlike that awaiting American troops had they invaded the Japanese mainland.

[the lancaster kicks ass]

to damn right!!! we've become rather accustomed to not being inavaded, we don't take kindly to invasions, every man able to weild a gun (including some trained soldiers from WWI) would be sitting on the coast, waiting for the germans, then burst out laughing as the few that made it across climbing out of their civillian barges getting shot at and bombed by the RAF, being torn apart by the RN and getting cut to shreads by barbed wire...............

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Lightning Guy

Well, there are some exceptions to defending home turf (the French in 1940 and the Italians in 1943). But I don't think the British would have been in this catergory. Churchill's "you can always take one with you possibly" certainly summed up the outlook of the British population. Had the Germans invaded England, they most likely would have faced a situation not unlike that awaiting American troops had they invaded the Japanese mainland.

I agree with you fully. The French completley underestimated the Germans and put to much emphasis on the Maginot Line (my spelling is terrible i think). The Italians on the other hand were pretty much fed up with Mussolini and wanted the Germans out. If the Germans had made it into England the British would have been able to stop it, and then the Stalin would have invaded from the East and it would have all been over.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by the lancaster kicks ass

to damn right!!! we've become rather accustomed to not being inavaded, we don't take kindly to invasions, every man able to weild a gun (including some trained soldiers from WWI) would be sitting on the coast, waiting for the germans, then burst out laughing as the few that made it across climbing out of their civillian barges getting shot at and bombed by the RAF, being torn apart by the RN and getting cut to shreads by barbed wire...............

Wow a lot of bottled up anger in there isn't!

[Udet]

Lancaster Kick Ass:

Sure you are entitled to your opinion, still it appears like you have an over-inflated view of the situation of England right after the fall of France.

For one moment it would seem you speak like if the losing side during 1940 was Germany and not England.

The Luftwaffe certainly never gained air superiority over England but the RAF was not in the best of the shapes either, they had sustained important losses as well.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

That is true that the Brits were not in that good of shape but I still dont think the Germans would have succeded in Seleowe, there were too many things standing against them.

[plan_D]

The RAF was battered, yes. However the RAF was producing planes without any trouble from Luftwaffe bombing, the RAF was bombing France and Germany. The RAF had gained complete air superiority over Britain, the Luftwaffe would not have been able to stop the RAF bombing the invasion fleet.

Do you think Normandy would have been it's amazing success if the Luftwaffe had complete air superiority over the Channel and Northern France. I can assure you, it would have not been. The LSTs would have been blown out the water before the troops even got ashore.

It may seem Lanc is getting over-excited but he's right. Britain was not going to lay down and die, Churchill had already prepared men for guerilla warfare when the Germans occupied their villages. There were like 5 men in each village trained for guerilla wafare, guns, explosives, knives, stealth they were all trained in.

[evangilder]

Yes, the Brits would have given the Germans a heck of a time. One proper motivation for an attack on German by partisans would go something like this:

Hey Trevor, see those Jerries over there?
Uh huh
They said <insert local favorite football club team> sucks
Those dirty bastards...

Then you'd see a field of dead Germans.

[Erich]

The GErman Army did not have enough landing craft acquisitioned so it would not of worked. Besides the UFO's were not ready to be launched as they had not gone through the proper flight trials for medium altitude......